Partition Issue
Chintu
(Querist) 27 October 2009
This query is : Resolved
Hi All,
I have bought two properties in 2008 Oct and Nov respectively. My Question is related to Partition Agreement and transfer of rights.
The two properties was an ancestral property to Party A and Party B , but the land was in the name of Party B;s father as he was the elder son of the family at the time off the demise of Grandfather of Party A's and B's . I have bought the land from Party A 2.27 Acres and Part B 1.22 Acres respectively in Oct & Nov 2008. These agriculture land had been partitioned by revenue authority the Tahsildar office in 1989 and the Tahsildar office has passed the order then to get the Katha created on Party A and Party B with their respective Share of land and both parties have agreed to the same and got their Katha certificates and RTC documents. (The Land was initially written on the name of Party B's Father. As he was the elder son of the family). In 1997 as the land prices has gone up. Party B filed a suite in Civil court objecting to the partition order passed by Tahsildar office (Tumkur) Karnataka, India. Court has upheld the partition order of Tahsildar and Dismissed the petition of the Party B.Again in 2007 he has filed a fresh petition claiming the ownership of the land based on the old documents which was in his fathers name. we had less knowledge at the time of my purchase of these lands. One of the broker got us both the lands as they were adjacent. When we bought the land we checked all the records and they were paying taxes and RTC along with Katha was in Party A (2.26 Acre) and Party B (1.22 Acre) respectively and we registered both the lands as per the records they had and the Katha has been transfered to my name along with RTC. Now I have converted the land from District Commisioner to Residential purposes. Recently Party B came to know that I have bought Party A's land and he wants to give an objection or may be move the court to stop registeration process of Party A's property.
Need help in understanding what rights Party B has on Party A's land and how can he create trouble in the registration process.
Thx..
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 28 October 2009
Chintu,
One thing I want to clear here Partition order cannot be passed by Tahasildar. His duty is to look after the recenue entries only. Partition and shares of the parties will be decided by the competent civil court only.
The proceedings before the Tahasildar might be dispute regarding the revenue entries. It is wrong Ba cannot file a civil suit challenging the order of the Tahasildar, against the order of the Tahasildar appeal before the Asst., commissioner lies.
Question of right of preemption arises here. Adjoinging onwer has can claim this right of preemption. Right of pre emption first preference to the adjoining owner while selling the property, if he is not interested then it can be sold to anybody.
No civil suit lies to stop the regn., procedings of REgistrar, and he has no authority to accept the objection to the regn., of the property, his duty is only registar the document. He cannot act beyond his power.
B cannot file such a suit, only he can take the benefit of the right of pre emption.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 28 October 2009
I am in disagreement with Rajeev. sorry to point out that right to preemption is now not available to even co sharer of the land what to talk of neighbor. This right is now available only to the tenant of the particular land to be sold. Second point on which I disagree with Rajeev is right to partition of agricultural land. tehsildar is fully entitled and the only authority to make partition of agricultural land. Civil court is barred. It is true that B cannot create any problem for you and registration process shall be as usual.
Suhail suhail
(Expert) 28 October 2009
ABSOLUTELY 100% CORRECT.I DISAGREE WITH MR. RAJEEV,AND I AGREE WITH MR.RAJ KUMAR.THE QUERY IS PERFECTLY REPLIED BY MR. RAJ NEEDS NO FURTHER EXPLANATION,HOWEVER I THINK IT NECESSARY TO PLACE HERE JUST FOR MY OBSERVATION WHICH I HOPE WILL BE CONSIDERED BY MY LEARNED FRIENDS IN THIS PROFESSION OF LAWYERING.THE PROBLEM POSED BY MR. CHINTU IS IS CORRECT WHEN HE STATES THE PRICES HAS RAISED AND GREED HAS ITS COURSE BY THIS WAY OR THAT WAY.THE PREVIOUS PERSONS,BE THEM PARTNERS, NEIGHBORS OR RELATIVES USED TO PLACE EVEN VERBAL TRANSFER OF PROPERTIES AND NEVER USED TO TURN BACK FROM THE TRANSITIONS ON THE BASIS OF TECHNICALITIES.BUT TIME HAS CHANGED AND IT DID CAUSE ME TO FEEL BAD FOR THE MORAL VALUE IS DEGRADING IN MAJORITY OF POPULATION REASON BEING EASY MONEY;EVERYONE WANTS EASY MONEY AND THE GREED HAS REALLY THREW THE PERSONS LIKE MR. CHINTU TO UNNECESSARY WORRIES.IT WAS NOT IN THIS STATE OF OURS BUT YES FROM LAST THREE YEARS I FOUND CASES BEING FILED IN GOOD NUMBERS ON THE BASIS OF TECHNICALITIES.I REQUEST MY FRIENDS TO DISCOURAGE SUCH PERSONS AS IT IS HAVING BEARING UPON OUR OWN SELVES,WE ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE SOCIETY AND WE ARE AND SHALL FEEL UNDER OBLIGATION TO DISCOURAGE THE PRACTICE WHERE SOME GREEDY PEOPLE FORCE THE INNOCENT PERSONS IN AN UNWANTED LITIGATION.IT IS APPRECIATIVE AS PLACED BY MR. RAJ THAT RIGHT OF PREEMPTION HAS NO MORE APPLICABILITY,AND IT IS OF COURSE A RE FORMATIVE LEGISLATION.
Chintu
(Querist) 30 October 2009
Thanks all for your suggestions. This has given me a great relief. One more question to add.. do you suggest me to apply a Caveat Application in the Civil court on this property. As there partition dispute of 2007 is still in the civil court.
Please help me with your valuable suggestion.
regards
R.Shivaram
